Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Defense Appropriations does not get cloture – focus turns to LCR case

Timothy Kincaid

September 21st, 2010

Los Angeles Times:

The measure repealing the military policy banning gays from serving openly was part of the 2011 Defense authorization bill. Democrats tried to bring up the bill for consideration but failed to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome determined GOP-led opposition. Supporters voted 56-43 in favor of starting debate on the Defense bill, short of the 60 needed.

From what I was able to hear of the debate, the hold-up was the Dream Act more than DADT, but I only heard small portions.

So there was no repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and there is plenty of blame to go around as to why. But perhaps more importantly is what happens now.

Now the ball is in the Obama Administration’s court. The President can single-handedly end the policy this week.

Log Cabin Republicans have asked for a world-wide injunction on the enforcement of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy following their successful case in federal court. The administration has yet to announce whether they will appeal this decision or fight the injunction, but they must decide on the latter by this Thursday.

Should the Obama Administration decline to oppose the injunction, then Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is dead. It may continue to sit on the books until a future date, but it can no longer be an impediment to open service.

They could also decide to request a delayed injunction, a period of time in which to phase in the change in policy. This would indicate that the Administration is committed to ending the discriminatory policy.

Or the Administration could oppose any injunction, a move that would signal their intention to appeal the decision and to fight for the continuance of the ban on open gay service. Considering the likely change in Congressional partisan make-up, this would quite possibly mean that repealing DADT is unlikely for the foreseeable future.

The choice is now the President’s. On Thursday we will know whether he is a fierce advocate.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Lost Choi
September 21st, 2010 | LINK

Timothy, you hit the nail on the head: the hold-up was the DREAM Act more than DADT.

And yet, I am confused by the media playing up the DADT aspect of the bill for the last several weeks, and playing down the DREAM Act. Most people I’ve talked with didn’t even know the DREAM Act was attached to this bill.

And yet, the current headline from the AP (“Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban (AP)”) and the article itself doesn’t even mention the DREAM Act!

Why is the media hyping the gay angle and playing down the illegal immigration angle? I can’t help thinking there’s a story here.

Mark F.
September 21st, 2010 | LINK

Timothy:

Do they really get a default injunction if the government does not oppose their motion?

Ray
September 21st, 2010 | LINK

If Senator McCain was one of the original sponsors of the DREAM Act, what was so controversial? Rachael Maddow reported McCain once sponsored that initiative on her program last night.

Timothy Kincaid
September 21st, 2010 | LINK

Mark,

That is up to the judge. But if the Justice Department did not oppose the injunction, I think it would be very likely. Further, a decision not to fight injunction would indicate a decision not to appeal.

Ray
September 21st, 2010 | LINK

Joe.My.God reported that a comment on his site, that appears to originate from the office of Senator Saxby Chambliss, says, “All fa**ots must die.”

I saw the comment on his site. A staffer?

Chris McCoy
September 21st, 2010 | LINK

Roll Call

YEAs — 56
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Goodwin (D-WV)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs — 43
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (R-MA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting — 1
Murkowski (R-AK)

Ray
September 21st, 2010 | LINK

Ahem. Seeing Senator Reid’s name among those who voted with the Republicans seems correct.

Rob
September 21st, 2010 | LINK

@ Ray

Reid voted with the Republicans so he could bring the repeal measure up again. It was a parliamentary maneuver.

Ray
September 21st, 2010 | LINK

Thanks Rob. Perhaps it was necessary but it’s hard to take to see his name listed there.

Rob
September 21st, 2010 | LINK

Well Pryor and Lincoln don’t have that excuse, especially Lincoln who’s going to lose her damn race anyway.

customartist
September 22nd, 2010 | LINK

Thanks Chris!

Unfortunately Obama will be steadily following the polls on this issue until say midday on Thursday, before making his determination.

If he proceeds, he will be criticized by some for being two-faced. If he does not proceed, he will be criticized for not defending current law (DADT).

Where he, and the Justice department, have made their mistakes is in not originally seeing that the Constitution is the higher law, and should have trumped DADT from the get-go. Even so, coming now to this conclusion would at least right a wrong.

I have always been the kind of person that if on the wrong track, I wanted to recognize this, and get on the right track. Continuing to dig a hole is not intelligent.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.